Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36508016›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2022

Detection of prostate cancer bone metastases with fast whole-body

Samuli Arvola, Marko Seppänen, Kirsi L Timonen, Pentti Rautio, Otto Ettala, Mikael Anttinen, Peter J Boström, Tommi Noponen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samuli ArvolaDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, P.O. Box 52, 20521, Turku, Finland. samuli.arvola@tyks.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9696-0510
Marko SeppänenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, P.O. Box 52, 20521, Turku, Finland.
Kirsi L TimonenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Nova of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Pentti RautioDepartment of Clinical Physiology, North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland.
Otto EttalaDepartment of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Mikael AnttinenDepartment of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Peter J BoströmDepartment of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Tommi NoponenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, P.O. Box 52, 20521, Turku, Finland.
University of Turku · FINorth Karelia Central Hospital · FI

Funding

Emil Aaltosen Säätiö 190012 N1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the effects of acquisition time, energy window width, and matrix size on the image quality, quantitation, and diagnostic performance of whole-body

methodsThirty prostate cancer patients underwent

resultsThe originally acquired images had the best qualitative image quality and lowest noise. However, the acquisition time could be reduced to 38 min, the energy window narrowed to 8%, and the matrix size increased to 256 × 256 with still acceptable qualitative image quality. Lesion contrast and SUVs were not affected by changes in acquisition parameters. Acquisition time reduction had no effect on the diagnostic performance, as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were not significantly different between the 50-min and reduced acquisition time images. The average patient-level sensitivities of the two readers were 88, 92, 100, and 96% for the 50-, 32-, 26-, and 16-min images, respectively, and the corresponding specificities were 78, 84, 84, and 78%. The average region-level sensitivities of the two readers were 55, 58, 59, and 56% for the 50-, 32-, 26-, and 16-min images, respectively, and the corresponding specificities were 95, 98, 96, and 95%. The number of equivocal lesions tended to increase as the acquisition time decreased.

conclusionWhole-body

Indexed as

BoneCZTSPECT/CTTime reductionWhole-body

Identifiers

PMID36508016
PMCPMC9743860
OpenAlexW4311503752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.